Drumbeat for War against Iran - January 2008

Updated March 04, 2008

108. Petraeus: Iran no longer supplying Weapons to Iraqi Resistance - January 3, 2008.
"Iran's leaders are no longer supplying weapons or training to Islamic militants in Iraq, the spokesman for the top U.S. commander in Iraq told The Washington Times. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, sees Iran as following through on assurances it made to Iraqi and U.S. officials last fall not to assist extremists in Iraq, spokesman Col. Steven Boylan said, adding that other U.S. officials have noted declines in Iranian weapons and funds to Iraqi insurgents." (Sara A. Carter ‘Iran no longer aids Iraq militants’ http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080103/NATION/498097125/1002 January 3, 2008). Lobe hypothesizes about the significance of this statement. "That Petraeus’ office, which has consistently been harsher in describing Tehran’s role in Iraq than the Pentagon brass back in Washington, is now agreeing with Satterfield’s assessment is obviously highly significant on the eve of renewed talks between the two nations’ ambassadors in Baghdad. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the release of some or all of the remaining 10 or so Iranians in U.S. custody in Iraq follow shortly." (Jim Lobe ‘More Signs of Iran Detente …From Petraeus’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=92 January 03, 2008). However, it needs to be taken into account that lobe is an inveterate optimist.

109. Did Iran try to embarrass Bush? – January 09, 2008.
Is it possible iran orchestrated three symbolic military attacks on america and its allies in the middle east in order to show how much the military balance of power in the middle east has shifted? The first step of bush’s tour was to the jews-only state in palestine on wednesday january 09, 2008.

Monday: Straits of Hormuz.
"On Monday, the Pentagon confirmed that five Iranian boats had harassed and threatened three US Navy warships in international waters." (Ilene R. Prusher ‘Israel steps up warnings to Bush on Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080109/wl_csm/oiranthreat January 09, 2008).

Tuesday: Lebanon.
Perhaps hezbollah reminded bush and the jews about the failure of their illegal, pre-emptive, and grossly disproportionate, war against lebanon. "On Tuesday, two Katyusha rockets, which Israel believes are supplied by Iran, that were fired from Lebanon hit Israel. It's unclear, however, who shot the rockets, but Katyushas are the weapon of choice for Iranian-backed Hizbullah against Israel." (Ilene R. Prusher ‘Israel steps up warnings to Bush on Iran’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080109/wl_csm/oiranthreat January 09, 2008).

Tuesday and Wednesday: Iraq.
"Six soldiers were killed and four were wounded Wednesday in a booby-trapped house in Diyala province, where joint U.S.-Iraqi forces were driving through a difficult web of lush palm and citrus groves, farmland and fertile river bottoms. The military also announced that three U.S. soldiers were killed and two were wounded Tuesday in an attack in Salahuddin province." (‘9 US soldiers killed in Iraq in 2 days’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_killed January 09, 2008).

110. Jewish Muppet on Middle East Tour - January 10, 2008.
Bush’s Objective is to heap abuse on Iran rather than push for Peace in the Middle East.
The annapolis conference and bush’s tour of the middle east were touted as the beginning of new peace negotiations in palestine. However, the likudnik dominated bush regime and the jews-only state used both events to try to build a military alliance against iran. "Iran poses a threat to world peace, US President George W. Bush said on Wednesday adding that the international community must work together to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. "Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat and Iran will be threat to world peace if the international community does not come together and prevent that nation from the development of the know-how to build a nuclear weapon," said Bush, challenging a US intelligence report released in December which found Tehran had abandoned a clandestine atomic weapons programme. "A country that once had a secret programme can easily restart a secret programme. A country which can enrich (uranium) for civilian purposes can easily transfer that knowledge to a military programme," said Bush. "A country which has made statements that it has made about our friend Israel is a country that needs to be taken seriously, and the international community must understand with clarity the threat that Iran provides to world peace," added Bush. "We will continue to work with European countries, Russia and China as well as nations in this neighbourhood to make it abundantly clear the threat that Iran poses to world peace."" (‘Iran a threat to world peace: Bush’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080109/pl_afp/mideastusdiplomacybushiran January 09, 2008); "President Bush said Sunday that Iran is threatening the security of the world, and that the United States and Arab allies must join together to confront the danger "before it's too late." Bush said Iran funds terrorist extremists, undermines stability in Lebanon, sends arms to the hardline Taliban regime, intimidates its neighbors with alarming rhetoric and defies the United Nations by refusing to be open about its nuclear program. "Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror," Bush said in a speech about democracy that he delivered about midway through his eight-day Mideast trip, which began with a renewed push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace pact, an accord he said whose "time has come." Chiding U.S. allies who have withheld civil liberties, Bush said governments will never build trust by harassing or imprisoning candidates and protesters. But his rebuke was general, and he did not single out any U.S. partner in the region for oppressive practices. "You cannot expect people to believe in the promise of a better future when they are jailed for peacefully petitioning their government," Bush said. "And you cannot stand up a modern, confident nation when you do not allow people to voice their legitimate criticisms." In renewing his "Freedom Agenda", Bush's grand ambition to seed democracy around the globe, the president declared: "We know from experience that democracy is the only system of government that yields lasting peace and stability."" (Anne Gearan ‘Bush says US, allies must confront Iran’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=3497 January 13, 2008); "In the weeks after the N.I.E.’s release, Bush insisted that the Iranian nuclear-weapons threat was as acute as ever, a theme he amplified during his nine-day Middle East trip after the New Year. "A lot of people heard that N.I.E. out here and said that George Bush and the Americans don’t take the Iranian threat seriously," he told Greta Van Susteren, of Fox News. "And so this trip has been successful from the perspective of saying . . . we will keep the pressure on." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘A Strike in the Dark: What did Israel bomb in Syria?’ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/11/080211fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=1 February 05, 2008).

The Fabrication of the Speedboat Incident.
Convenient Incident for Bush to Hype War against Iran.
It was speculated in the previous section that iran might have fired some military shots across bush’s bow during his visit to the middle east. However, it quickly turned out that the bush regime had fabricated the threats posed by iranian speedboats to provide the right political context for bush’s tour of the middle east. The intention was to instill fear in sunni arab dictators about iran’s military ambitions in the region in the hope that they would form an alliance with the jews and americans to confront iran.

The Views of Gareth Porter.
"The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent. With the reports from 5th Fleet commander Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, Jan. 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident. The decision came just as President George W. Bush was about to leave on a Middle East trip aimed in part at rallying Arab states to join the United States in an anti-Iran coalition. The decision to treat the Jan. 6 incident as evidence of an Iranian threat reveals a chasm between the interests of political officials in Washington and Navy officials in the Gulf. Asked whether the Navy's reporting of the episode was distorted by Pentagon officials, Cmdr. Robertson of 5th Fleet Public Affairs would not comment directly. But she said, "There is a different perspective over there."" (Gareth Porter ‘How the Pentagon Planted a False Story’ http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12221 January 16, 2008).

The Views of Justin Raimondo.
"The Iranian "provocation" in the straits of Hormuz has set the stage for a new "crisis" manufactured wholly by the War Party, the rationale for which is uncritically accepted by our passive "mainstream" media. We are expected to believe that five minuscule speedboats "menaced" the USS Hopper, a destroyer armed with missiles; the cruiser USS Port Royal; and the USS Ingraham, a frigate. That's rather like five gnats "menacing" a trio of elephants. Oh, but that's not all. In addition to intercepting the American flotilla, CNN reports the Iranians supposedly issued explicit threats: "In one radio transmission, the Iranians told the U.S. Navy: 'I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes,' the U.S. military officials told CNN."" (Justin Raimondo ‘'A Heartbeat Away' From War With Iran and Pakistan’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12176 January 9, 2008).

Lobe suggests the Pentagon put its own spin on Bush’s Speedboat Ploy.
Lobe puts a positive gloss on the incident suggesting the pentagon went along with the bush regime’s spin about the threat posed by iranian speedboats in order to force bush into accepting an "incidents at sea" agreement with iran. "Within that context, the timing of the Pentagon’s decision to publicize what really an apparently not-particularly-threatening incident involving Revolutionary Guard speedboats is particularly intriguing as I suspect there have been more serious incidents in the recent past. Frustrated until now in their efforts to get the White House to authorize negotiations over a new agreement, could it be that Fallon (who worked very hard to improve military ties, sometimes over the objections of Donald Rumsfeld, with China as the commander of the Ninth Fleet), Cosgriff, and other Pentagon and Navy officials decided to dramatize the danger just as Bush was embarking on his trip, anticipating that the president would get an earful from his Gulf state hosts about their fears that a naval confrontation could quickly escalate into a real war in which they would suffer significant collateral damage?" (Jim Lobe ‘About that Straits Incident…’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=93 January 11, 2008).

The following quote fits into lobe’s hypothesis concerning the pentagon’s desire for a maritime agreement with iran. "The commander of a US warship gave the order to fire on an approaching Iranian speedboat in the Strait of Hormuz last month but it turned away just in time, the US military chief said Wednesday. No shots were fired during the incident which occurred January 6 when Iranian boats approached three US warships at high speed as they transited the strait at the mouth of the Gulf. Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the United States wanted to avoid any miscalculations but it had to rely on the judgments of its commanding officers. "From my perspective there is wisdom in relying on their judgement, as we did the other day," he told the House Armed Services Committee." (‘Order given to fire on Iranian speedboat, but it turned away: Mullen’ http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Order_given_to_fire_on_Iranian_spee_02062008.html February 6, 2008). However, the pentagon’s ploy shows no sign of working.

Political Analyzes of Bush’s Tour.
The Views of Justin Raimondo.
"As Bush travels to the Middle East to gather support for his campaign to isolate Tehran and declares that "Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat, and Iran will continue to be a threat", in spite of his own National Intelligence Estimate, which says quite the contrary, the Democratic presidential aspirants are strangely silent. Of all the candidates, in both parties, only Rep. Ron Paul, a 10-term Republican congressman from Texas, has warned about the dangers of another Gulf of Tonkin-style incident." (Justin Raimondo ‘'A Heartbeat Away' From War With Iran and Pakistan’ http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12176 January 9, 2008).

The Views of M K Bhadrakumar.
"Bush was due to set out from Washington on Wednesday on his Middle East tour: Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Egypt, virtually with empty hands. But where people misjudge is that the real purpose of Bush's visit to the region lies elsewhere. His principal aim is to keep the heat on Iran. Bush admitted that in his talks in the region, he would focus on containing the "hostile aspirations" of Iran. He told the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahnronot, "Part of the reason I'm going to the Middle East is to make it abundantly clear to nations in that part of the world that we view Iran as a threat, and that the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] in no way lessens that threat, but in fact clarifies that threat." The leitmotif of Bush's high-profile tour of the Middle East is unmistakably Iran. But Washington's Iran policy lies in tatters and it has no choice but to ratchet up anti-Iran rhetoric, though it realizes there are no takers in the Middle East for such rhetoric of fire and brimstone. The danger now is that Tehran may choose to hunker down and prefer to deal with the next US administration." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Bush's last throw against Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA10Ak03.html January 10, 2008).

The Views of Trita Parsi.
"It is by now almost routine. With recurring frequency, US leaders tour the Middle East depicting Iran as the region's greatest threat. As such, President George W. Bush's visit to the Middle East this week has historic precedent. But while the message often fell on receptive ears in the past, regional players today have misgivings about Washington's ability, and perhaps more importantly, its competence in handling Iran's rise. Yet after a decade of making Iran's isolation a central tenet of Washington's Mideast policy, the track record is clear: In spite of all the rhetoric and all the political capital invested in this approach, the policy of containing Iran has failed miserably. Though a significant cost has been imposed on Iran, the isolation policy has neither prevented Iran's rise nor has it compelled Tehran to moderate its foreign policy. In this context, the incident between five Iranian vessels and three US Naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz this past Sunday may not, as the Bush administration may have hoped, clarify the threat Iran poses to the region. Rather, the read of regional players may be that the most dangerous source of tension is the current state of no-war no-peace between the US and Iran, which has created an atmosphere in which incidents at sea, whether intentional or accidental, can escalate into full-fledged wars with unpredictable regional repercussions. As a result, instead of making the Arabs more receptive to President Bush's message, the naval episode may prompt them to further lose faith in the policy of isolation." (Trita Parsi ‘Will Naval Incident Undermine Bush's Iran Message? http://www.antiwar.com/ips/parsi.php?articleid=12184 January 10, 2008).

Bush suffers considerable Diplomatic Setbacks on Tour.
Prelude to Bush’s Tour: Sunni Arab Dictators ditching the Zionists’ concept of the "Shiite crescent".
The jews-only state in palestine and the likudnik dominated bush regime tried to use the annapolis conference to re-establish their alliance with sunni arab dictators to promote an attack on iran and what the zionists call the "shiite crescent". However, sunni arab dictators were more interested in pushing for peace in palestine and coming to an accommodation with iran. "By ingratiating themselves further with Iran, the GCC states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, UAE) simultaneously send a strong signal to the US and Israel that the hidden agenda at Annapolis, forming an anti-Iran alliance, will not be on their agenda." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Iran turns the charm on its neighbors’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL04Ak01.html December 04, 2007); "That's why America's attempt to shore up containment against Iran increasingly seems to be yesterday's battle. On Dec. 3, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the GCC in Doha, Qatar. It was the first time an Iranian leader had addressed the alliance, which was formed in 1981 against the Iranian challenge. Weeks later, Saudi King Abdullah invited Mr. Ahmadinejad to Saudi Arabia, the president's third visit in a year, for the hajj, or Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. The king used the occasion to hold cordial talks. Iran is even reaching out to Egypt. Ali Larijani, head of Iran's National Security Council, visited Cairo recently for the highest level talks in 27 years. Afterward, Arab League chief Amr Moussa bluntly stated that there was no point in Arabs treating Iran as an enemy. Gulf Arabs have thus visibly discarded the central pillar of the past year of America's Middle East strategy. Saudis and Egyptians had been the prime movers in anti-Iranian and anti-Shiite agitation. When they are inviting Ahmadinejad and Mr. Larijani to their capitals, America's talk of isolating Iran sounds outdated. One hears little today of the "Shiite crescent" threatening the region, against which Arab officials once gravely warned. The Bush administration's proposed "axis of moderation," joining Sunni Arab states and Israel against Iran, has quietly passed from view." (Marc Lynch ‘Why U.S. strategy on Iran is crumbling’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080104/cm_csm/ylynch_1 January 04, 2008).

Bush’s follow-up to Annapolis is yet more anti-Iran Propaganda.
When bush commenced his tour of the middle east he decided to ignore the signals that had been given by sunni arab dictators and persisted with his effort to create an arab alliance against iran. When arab dictators realized their objectives continued to be ignored they mounted a further series of political gestures to symbolize their new stance. Arab dictators seem to have lost patience with bush’s likudnik warmongering extravaganza and clearly signaled they wanted peace with iran and were willing to recognize its interests in the region.

Al-Riyadh Newspaper: January 12, 2008.
"Bush on Friday (January 11, 2008) began a four-nation Gulf tour as part of a Middle East trip to push for a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and rally the support of his allies in the Sunni Muslim oil monarchies against the "threat" he says is posed by Shiite Muslim Iran. A leading Saudi newspaper on Saturday ruled out any attempt by the United States to use the oil-rich Gulf kingdom as a launchpad for a possible war on Iran over Tehran's disputed nuclear programme. Two days before a visit to Saudi Arabia by US President George W. Bush, the pro-government daily Al-Riyadh said: "We refuse to be used to launch wars or tensions with Iran. This issue can be solved through diplomatic means and through dialogue," said the paper which reflects the views of the Saudi authorities. "If the president wants to obtain the solidarity of all the Arabs... he must focus, rationally, on the most important issue which is the question of peace," Al-Riyadh said. The daily urged Bush "not to preoccupy himself with a danger which US intelligence has qualified as non-existent in the short term." "Iran's supposed danger does not minimise the real danger of Israel, which is among 10 countries in the world to have nuclear weapons," the Saudi paper said. Bush is welcome "as a man of peace, not a man of war," it added." (‘Saudi cannot be launchpad for Iran attack: report’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080112/wl_mideast_afp/mideastusdiplomacysaudi January 12, 2008).

Kuwaiti foreign minister's visit to Tehran: January 13, 2008.
"But short of rhetoric, Tehran has effectively undercut Bush's diplomatic moves in the region. The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced on Sunday the first session of an Iran-Kuwait joint commission will be held in Tehran this week at the level of the foreign ministers. The deep irony cannot be lost on the region. Bush will still be in the region when the foreign minister of one of Washington's key allies in the region will be visiting Tehran, breaking fresh ground for cooperation with Iran. The Kuwaiti foreign minister's visit to Tehran comes within a day of Bush's call on Persian Gulf countries to "confront this danger [posed by Iran] before it is too late". Indeed, Kuwait was Bush's first halt in the Persian Gulf during the current tour. What emerges once again is that, frustrated with US regional policies, a key ally is breaking loose and pursuing its own diplomatic drive towards Iran." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Gulf allies turn their backs on Bush’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA16Ak02.html January 16, 2008); "Gulf Arab states have simply refused to be drawn into a US-led alliance against Iran. They reiterate their firm preference for quiet diplomacy and are manifestly reluctant to confront a neighbor of growing regional influence. They are instead proceeding with their own accommodation with Tehran. The latest such move is by Kuwait, whose foreign minister is currently on a visit to Tehran with the intent of initiating discussions with his Iranian counterpart to resolve a 50-year maritime boundary dispute between the countries that has blocked the development of the massive Dorra gas field in the Persian Gulf (which is also shared by Saudi Arabia)." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US woos a partner over Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA23Df02.html January 23, 2008).

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal: January 16, 2008.
"Reactions coming from Saudi Arabia, which has been projected by Washington in recent months as the linchpin of the Bush administration's efforts to put together an anti-Iran coalition, have been even more revealing. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said on Wednesday Riyadh's national interests came first when dealing with Tehran. "We have relations with Iran and we talk with them, and if we felt any danger we have links ... that allow us to talk about. So we welcome any issue the president [Bush] raises and we will discuss them from our point of view," he said. Such bluntness is unprecedented in US-Saudi relations." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Gulf allies turn their backs on Bush’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA16Ak02.html January 16, 2008).

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi: January 16, 2008.
"Similarly, influential Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said on Sunday, "Iran and Saudi Arabia can turn into a proper model for the rest of the Islamic world through mutual cooperation and with the help of other regional states." He said recent developments such as the Saudi invitation to the Iranian president to participate in the hajj were "clear indications of a deepening of Riyadh's relations with Tehran"." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Gulf allies turn their backs on Bush’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA16Ak02.html January 16, 2008).

Arab News: January 18, 2008.
The Arab News yesterday called President Bush's "saber rattling" against Iran during his Middle East tour "sad, even depressing."" (Robin Wright ‘GAO Report Challenges Effect of Longtime U.S. Sanctions on Iran’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603711.html January 17, 2008; "While in the run-up to Bush’s visit to Saudi Arabia, its foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, was quoted in some of the mainstream press as warning against U.S. efforts to pit the Gulf states against Iran in this way, a remarkably blunt editorial, entitled "Peace Now," that appeared in the Jeddah-based English-language Arab News on the second day of the president’s sojourn in Saudi Arabia, two days after his Abu Dhabi speech, received virtually no notice. It should have, because it is probably unprecedented in its bluntness about the kingdom’s honored guest, constituting what the former U.S. ambassador to Riyadh, Chas Freeman, today called "a notable …breach of standard Arab etiquette" and one that was presumably condoned, if not approved, by senior members of the royal family. No one from the News has since been publicly admonished or dismissed, let alone arrested; indeed, no official has distanced the government from the sentiments expressed in it. The entire text, which is reproduced below, warrants attention, but the last paragraph, in which U.S. policy is described as "madness", is not a little breathtaking, considering that the presidential party probably received complimentary copies with their morning coffee." (Jim Lobe ‘Anti-Iran Coalition in the Gulf? Read This’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=96 January 18, 2008).

Khaleej Times.
"Bush's customary rhetoric against Iran was not well received in the UAE and in other countries in the region. "Unfortunately, the focus of this epoch-making visit to Abu Dhabi and Dubai has been on the US preoccupation with Iran, rather than America's strong and healthy relations with the UAE and other Gulf allies," UAE's pro-government Khaleej Times wrote. "Just as the Gulf countries have healthy relations with the West, including the US, they also have historical, cultural and economic ties with Iran," the newspaper wrote. "The UAE happens to be Iran's biggest trading partner. This is why the UAE and other Gulf countries wouldn't want any more confrontation and conflict between the US and Iran. The Middle East and Gulf region, already suffering from two conflicts, cannot afford any more tensions. Peace and only peace is the way forward."" (Kimia Sanati ‘US efforts to scuttle Iran-UAE ties fail’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB27Ak02.html February 27, 2008).

Bhadrakumar suggests "historic breakthrough" on the Cards.
What is remarkable about the above saudi objections to bush’s likudnik foreign policies was that they were voiced at the same time saudi arabia was negotiating an arms deal with america. In other words, when it would seem the saudis would be at their most compliant to obtain the sophisticated weapons they desired from america. "One of the more notable aspects is that the Bush administration plans to sell advanced satellite-guided bombs, such as the JDAM, which the United States has never before sold to Saudi Arabia, fighter aircraft upgrades, and new naval vessels to six Gulf Cooperation Council countries, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman. One might view this as the triumph of hope over reality; given that the US has had little success in the past in using arms sales to buy leverage in the region. And unlike some past sales, no conditions are attached. In fact, when Rice visited the Middle East last July, she insisted that the Bush administration had not imposed demands on its allies in exchange for the arms and aid deals. "This isn't an issue of quid pro quo," Rice told reporters. "We are working with these states to fight back extremism." And with no strings attached to the assistance, no democratic reforms, human-rights conditions or peace-making obligations, the arms sales do nothing to change the behavior of the authoritarian regimes in the region." (David Isenberg ‘Smart bombs, dangerous ideas’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA16Ak01.html January 16, 2008).

Despite the colossal amount of abuse and fabrications the zionist dominated bush regime and the western mainstream (zionist dominated) media have hurled at mahmoud ahmadinejad since he was democratically elected as president of iran, it now seems he has not merely fended off an american military attack on iran he is also on the verge of alienating america’s arab allies against bush. "It gives the decisive push to the "pro-West" Arab regimes to turn their backs on Bush's desperate pleas to join an anti-Iran coalition. Even for the most ardent "pro-West" Arab regimes, there is a serious problem now in identifying with the US-Israeli chorus. Equally, this "new thinking" will have implications for the Palestine-Israel peace process, as well as the situation in Lebanon and Iraq. Simply put, Tehran may be on the verge of breaking through to mainstream Arab regional politics, a historic breakthrough." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘Gulf allies turn their backs on Bush’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA16Ak02.html January 16, 2008).

There is not the slightest chance of the western mainstream (i.e. zionist dominated) media highlighting ahmadinejad’s string of recent diplomatic successes. Ahmadinejad has cultivated varying degrees of support from putin, turkey, the gulf states, and china. Likudnik dominated western regimes have been attempting to persuade the international community to isolate iran from the rest of the world as a prelude to an attack on iran. The irony is that ahmadinejad has been turning the tables on them by persuading the international community to oppose a likudnik war against iran.

The zionist dominated western media has fabricated the illusion that the west is fighting a noble battle against iranian islamofascism. But, outside of this jewish propaganda bubble, the rest of the world increasingly sees bush as a dangerous warmonger, under the spell of jewish racists, implementing policies designed to promote jewish supremacism. If the west launches a third world war against iran it will be fighting under the banner of jewish nazism against a world repulsed by the barbarism of jewish supremacism.

Commentators who believe Bush failed to get the Saudis to Reduce the global Price of Oil.
Another diplomatic failure that bush suffered on his tour of the middle east was his failure to persuade arab oil producers to reduce the global price of oil in order to stop the american economy from contracting.

Michael T Klare.
Michael t klare argued that a major part of america’s current economic problems has been caused by the dramatic increase in the price of imported oil which has drained dollars from american consumers to the world’s oil producers. He pointed out that "In 1998, crude oil cost about $11 a barrel .." but that by november 2007 it had reached $100. America’s oil import bill has shot up dramatically. "In 1998, the United States paid approximately $45 billion for its imported oil; in 2007, that bill is likely to have reached $400 billion or more." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008).

Klare argued that whilst bush was on tour he was reduced to begging arab oil producers for help in relieving pressure on the american economy. "Nothing better captures the debilitating nature of America's dependence on imported oil than President George W Bush's humiliating recent performance in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He quite literally begged Saudi King Abdullah to increase the kingdom's output of crude oil in order to lower the domestic price of gasoline. "My point to His Majesty is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline, in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down," he told an interviewer before his royal audience. "If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of [Saudi] oil purchased." Needless to say, the Saudi leadership dismissed this implied threat for the pathetic bathos it was. The Saudis, indicated Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, would raise production only "when the market justifies it". With that, they made clear what the whole world now knows: The American bubble has burst, and it was oil that popped it. Thus are those with an "oil addiction" (as Bush once termed it) forced to grovel before the select few who can supply the needed fix." (Michael T Klare ‘How oil burst the American bubble’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JB02Dj04.html February 2, 2008). It is entirely feasible that bush requested that saudi arabia reduce oil prices. However, whether this request was anything like as "humiliating" as klare suggested is another matter.

Klare has been quoted above as stating. "Nothing better captures the debilitating nature of America's dependence on imported oil than President George W Bush's humiliating recent performance in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia." This statement is grossly myopic. America’s economic dependence on arab oil is nothing like as debilitating as america’s political dependence on the jews-only state for determining america’s policies in the greater middle east. Bush’s refusal to compromise with saudi rulers to resuscitate the american economy clearly reveals america’s chronic political dependency on the jewish lobby. Bush’s "humiliating recent performance in Riyadh" was nothing like as abject as his performance in the jews-only state where he was solely concerned with supporting whatever barbarism the jews employed against the palestinians whilst totally ignoring the palestinians’ plight, their human rights, and their rights under international law. His servility to the jews and their policy of using disproportionate violence to boost jewish supremacism, couldn’t have been much more blatant given that within a matter of hours of his leaving the middle east the jews were trying to starve 1.5 million palestinians to death. The jews are daleks whose only slogan is ‘Exterminate. Exterminate.’ And bush is no less a victim of this pathological violence than palestinians.

For an extended critique of klare’s analysis please see, ‘Michael Klare: Blame it on the Arabs’.

M K Bhadrakumar.
"To cap it all, "we're in a new oil policy ball game", as author Steve Yetiv and economist Lowell Feld recently wrote, which is that the US's capacity to ease oil prices is diminishing. On his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, US President George W Bush pushed the subject of high oil prices increasing the likelihood of an American, and therefore, a global recession. There was a time since the late 1970s until quite recently when the US's Saudi allies would have promptly pumped the market with additional oil for depressing the price. This time around, the Saudis heard out Bush, "noted that the weakening US economy is a valid concern, but they remain reluctant to increase oil supply". The two writers pointed out, "Saudi Arabia's reluctance to address sustained high oil prices, even in the face of a potential recession, represents an important break with past Saudi oil policy ... Why? The answer may define oil in the 21st century, or at least underscore the reasons for the US to seek greater oil independence."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘The door to Iraq's oil opens’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB16Ak05.html February 16, 2008).

Jim Lobe.
"Indeed, last month's image of President George W. Bush imploring King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to increase oil production to boost the battered U.S. economy helped bring home the notion that the commander in chief's word no longer serves as an imperial command." (Jim Lobe ‘Can the US Brace Its Fall?’ http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=12380 February 18, 2008).

111. Every time Bush condemns Iran the price of Oil goes up - January 14, 2008.
Every time the jewish lobby pressures bush into threatening iran the price of oil goes up and american consumers, householders, and motorists, suffer the consequences of these jewish policies. In section 80 ‘Further successes for the Likudniks’ Sanctions on Iran - October 26, 2007’ it was pointed out that the bush regime announced new sanctions on iran. Condoleeza rice claimed such sanctions raised "the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behavior" but, in the real world, the sanctions dramatically raised the costs to america and the global economy. "Crude oil rose to a record above $91 a barrel in New York ..." (Angela Macdonald-Smith and Christian Schmollinger ‘Oil Rises to Record Above $91 on Supply Drop, Iran Sanctions’ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=asRxaqSNoT4o&refer=us October 26, 2007).

Bush’s condemnations of iran on his tour of the middle east produced the same effect. "Oil rose more than $1 Monday as the dollar slipped and tensions between the United States and Iran stoked supply concerns. Crude, which remains below the peak $100.09 struck on Jan. 3, got a boost from comments by President Bush against OPEC member Iran. During a trip to the Middle East, Bush accused Iran of threatening global security by backing militants and urged his Gulf Arab allies to confront the issue. The comments rekindled worries the tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program could disrupt shipments from the fourth largest crude exporter." (Matthew Robinson ‘Oil rises on US-Iran tensions, weaker dollar http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=4773 January 14, 2008).

It is highly likely that a significant proportion of the dramatic rise in oil prices which has taken place over the last few years has been due to the jewish lobby pressuring the bush regime into threatening military action against iran. If american motorists want someone to blame for their high oil prices their best bet would be america’s jewish lobby. In britain, the car lobby is reputed to be one of the most powerful lobbies in the country but it hasn’t raised a squeak about who it blames for high oil prices. It has to be suspected the same is almost certainly true in america. The american oil and car lobbies wouldn’t dare blame high oil prices on the jewish lobby. Even though the former are commonly deemed to be amongst the most powerful lobbies in the country they are nothing like as powerful as the jewish lobby.

112. Americans continue to focus on Iran’s Missiles - January 16, 2008.
"Iran has accelerated development of its long-range missiles that could reach Europe within several years, director of the US Missile Defence Agency Henry Obering said Wednesday. "I believe that we have very much to be concerned about from (Iran)," he told a Prague conference on possibilities for Czech companies and scientists to participate in the US missile defence system proposed for Eastern Europe. Iran was the third most active country in "flight-testing missiles behind Russia and China" last year, Obering said. "They are developing ranges of missiles that go far beyond anything they would need in a regional fight, for example with Israel," he added. "Why are they developing missiles today that would be possible to reach Europe within a few years?" he asked. "Are we going to sit by and allow ourselves not to be able to defend against a coercive threat or an actual threat, should that evolve?"" (‘Iran has sped up missile development, US official says’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=6999 January 16, 2008).

113. US Government Accountability Office releases report on Iran Sanctions - January 16, 2008.
Over the last couple of decades, america’s jewish elite has succeeded in pressuring a succession of american administrations into imposing unilateral sanctions against iran. In recent years the global jewish elite has pressured the united nations’ security council into passing sanctions on iran. However, nobody has carried out any empirical research into whether these sanctions have been effective or not. The first assessment into the efficacy of these likudnik sanctions has just been released by the american government’s accountability office. "A three-year international effort to pressure Iran is faltering, with a new report to Congress questioning the impact of 20 years of U.S. economic sanctions on Tehran and a long-sought U.N. resolution against Iran in trouble. In a report released yesterday, the investigative arm of Congress challenged the impact of U.S. sanctions against Iran dating to 1987. Tehran has circumvented many economic sanctions, it concluded, noting Iran's ability to negotiate $20 billion in contracts with foreign firms since 2003 to develop its energy resources. With the country's oil wealth, Iranian banks also have funded their activities in currencies other than the dollar. "Iran's global trade ties and leading role in energy production make it difficult for the United States to isolate Iran and pressure it to reduce proliferation and support for terrorism," the Government Accountability Office said. "Iran's overall trade with the world has grown since the U.S. imposed sanctions, although this trade has fluctuated."" (Robin Wright ‘GAO Report Challenges Effect of Longtime U.S. Sanctions on Iran’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603711.html January 17, 2008); "A report released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office, an independent auditing group that answers to the U.S. Congress, says, "The overall impact of sanctions, and the extent to which these sanctions further U.S. objectives, is unclear," and that foreign firms continue to make deals in Iran's state-controlled energy sector." (Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim ‘Iran sanctions ripple past those in power’ http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/itsonlyfair/latimes0042.html January 20, 2008). The gao’s conclusion "Iran's overall trade with the world has grown since the U.S. imposed sanctions .." will not make the likudniks happy.

For the success of the iranian economy in defying american and un sanctions please see, ‘Iran’s Economy defying Likudnik Inspired American Sanctions’.

114. Gates states Iran only a Challenge - January 18, 2008.
"Gates was asked whether he considered Iran to be "the greatest threat that the United States is likely to face in the final year of this administration." His answer must have caused serious heartburn in the Vice President’s office. "Well, I think Iran is, certainly, one of the most significant challenges," Gates replied to the question. "We continue to be concerned about their ongoing enrichment programs, their unwillingness to suspend in the face of broad international pressure to do so. So I think it will continue to be a challenge."
STEVE INSKEEP: Is there a reason you described them as a challenge rather than a threat?
GATES: Well, when I think of a threat, I think of a direct military threat and, while the jury is out in terms of whether they have eased up on their support to those opposing us in Iraq, I don’t see the Iranians in the near term as a direct military threat to the United States." It’s important to put this exchange in the context both of the purported confrontation between U.S. warships and Iranian Revolutionary Guard speedboats in the Straits of Hormuz the previous week and of Bush’s trip to the region, a major theme of which was the "threat" posed by Iran not just to its Gulf neighbors, but to all countries, presumably including the United States." (Jim Lobe ‘Gates Again Undermines the Hawks’ http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=97 January 19, 2008).

115. Americans continue to condemn Iran’s Roadside Bombs - January 18, 2008.
"The U.S. military in Iraq is seeing an upswing in the number of roadside bomb attacks using deadly armor-piercing munitions linked to Iran, top defense officials said Friday. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the number of attacks involving explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, in the first two weeks of January was about equal to EFP attacks during all of December. "The number was fairly low in December but it's about double so far in January," Gates said during a return flight from a visit to a U.S. Navy installation near Charleston, South Carolina. The U.S. defense chief provided no details about the attacks and initially described the weapons used as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. A senior Army officer later said his reference was specifically to attacks involving EFPs." (David Morgan ‘Iraq seeing rise in Iran-linked bomb blasts, US’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=10052 January 18, 2008).

116. Americans continue to condemn Iran’s Alleged Terrorism - January 18, 2008.
"Although nukes and Iraq have been the main focus of the Bush Administration's pressure campaign against Iran, US officials also seek to tar Iran as the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. And Team Bush's latest tactic is to play up a thirteen-year-old accusation that Iran was responsible for the notorious Buenos Aires bombing that destroyed the city's Jewish Community Center, known as AMIA, killing eighty-six and injuring 300, in 1994. Unnamed senior Administration officials told the Wall Street Journal January 15 that the bombing in Argentina "serves as a model for how Tehran has used its overseas embassies and relationship with foreign militant groups, in particular Hezbollah, to strike at its enemies." After spending several months interviewing officials at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires familiar with the Argentine investigation, the head of the FBI team that assisted it and the most knowledgeable independent Argentine investigator of the case, I found that no real evidence has ever been found to implicate Iran in the bombing. Based on these interviews and the documentary record of the investigation, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the case against Iran over the AMIA bombing has been driven from the beginning by US enmity toward Iran, not by a desire to find the real perpetrators." (Gareth Porter ‘Bush's Iran/Argentina Terror Frame-Up’ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter January 18, 2008).

117. Herzliya Conference: January 20-22, 2008.
Hawks suggest the Jos has got to go it Alone.
"The eight annual three-day Herzliya Conference, entitled Balance of Israel's National Security and coordinated by the Institute for Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya's Lauder School of Government, continued for the second day on Monday. The theme for this year's conference is "Israel at 60: Tests of Endurance." The list of speakers at the traditionally right-wing conference included a number of Israeli and Western diplomats and lawmakers. Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton used the platform to argue that Israel may have to take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb." (‘Speakers at Israeli gathering defend heavy-handedness - past and future’ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=88243 January 22, 2008); "While their numbers were strong, the hawks this year appeared less confident about their influence on Washington's foreign policy, and resentful of an American bureaucracy perceived by many attendees as having hijacked Iran policy from the weakening grasp of the White House. "It's close to zero percent chance that the Bush administration will authorize military action against Iran before leaving office," Bolton told the conference. "No one should be under any illusions about the United States' part in the Iranian situation in the coming year." Podhoretz, for his part, agreed: "Unless Bush realizes or fulfills my fading hope of air strikes, it is undoubtedly up to Israel to prevent" Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Bolton, like Podhoretz, urged Israeli policymakers to prepare to take matters into their own hands, saying "Israel should be willing to see themselves as a possible last resort." Though his call for Israel to prepare to strike Iran on its own, as well as his outspoken exasperation with the administration he until recently served, were met with chuckles from the Herzliya audience, the prospect of Israel ultimately choosing to act unilaterally came up again and again." (Laura Rozen ‘The Hawks' Last Hurrah?’ http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/02/neocons-last-hurrah.html February 8, 2008).

Funders of the Herzliya Conference: Sheldon Adelson and Ronald (Estee) Lauder.
"One reason for the perceived rightward tilt: the conference's backers. This year the conference was co-sponsored by the Jerusalem-based Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, which is funded by Las Vegas-based billionaire and Republican philanthropist Sheldon Adelson, among others. Adelson is also a leading backer of Freedom's Watch, a well-funded Washington advocacy group that is pushing for the U.S. to maintain the troop surge in Iraq and take a hardline on Iran. Among other American philanthropists in attendance: Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune heir Ronald Lauder, who is the benefactor for the Herzliya policy graduate school that bears his name at the IDC university; Chicago philanthropist Lester Crown, a prominent supporter of Barack Obama; and former president of the Israel lobby group AIPAC Bob Asher, the latter who received an award at the conference." (Laura Rozen ‘The Hawks' Last Hurrah?’ http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/02/neocons-last-hurrah.html February 8, 2008).

118. The Honorary Jew, the Jew-ish, John Bolten - January 21, 2008.
John bolten has proven himself to be such a loyal servant of the jews-only state in palestine he could be called an ‘honorary jew’ or perhaps ‘jew-ish’. He seems willing to drive america into a political, military, and economic, catastrophe in order to boost jewish racism in the middle east. "The 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate, as well as the skewed reporting around it, is a sign of the "illegitimate politicization" of the American intelligence establishment, according to former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton. The document reportedly said Iran stopped its nuclear weapons production program in 2003. While "Iran's nuclear program is continuing and expanding," Bolton told The Jerusalem Post at a book-signing in a Tel Aviv Steimatzky on Sunday, "the NIE has had a devastating impact on our global efforts to try and constrain Iran."" (Haviv Rettig ‘Bolton: US intelligence has become politicized’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200572500855&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull January 21, 2008).

119. Bush regime’s Systematic Lying - January 22, 2008.
"A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses." The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism. The White House did not immediately return a phone call for comment. The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both." (‘Study: False statements preceded war’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=14555 January 22, 2008).

120. Nato advocating the Jews’ First Nuclear Strike - January 24, 2008.
Nato wants right to First Nuclear Strike to save Human Beings.
"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." (Five Western military leaders). I read the statement three times trying to figure out the typo. Then it hit me, the West has now out-Orwellled Orwell: The West must nuke other countries in order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction! In Westernspeak, the West nuking other countries does not qualify as the use of weapons of mass destruction. The astounding statement comes from a paper prepared for a NATO summit in April by five top military leaders – an American, a German, a Dutchman, a Frenchman, and a Brit. The paper, prepared by men regarded as distinguished leaders and not as escapees from insane asylums, argues that "the West's values and way of life are under threat, but the West is struggling to summon the will to defend them." The leaders find that the UN is in the way of the West's will, as is the European Union which is obstructing NATO and "NATO's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan." Who, what is threatening the West's values and way of life? Political fanaticism, religious fundamentalism, and the imminent spread of nuclear weapons, answer the five asylum escapees. By political fanaticism, do they mean the neoconservatives who believe that the future of humanity depends on the US establishing its hegemony over the world? By religious fundamentalism, do they mean "rapture evangelicals" agitating for armageddon or Christian and Israeli Zionists demanding a nuclear attack on Iran? By spread of nuclear weapons, do they mean Israel's undeclared and illegal possession of several hundred nuclear weapons? The "brutal world" consists of those immoral fanatics who object to being marginalized by the West and who reply to mass bombings from the air and to the death and destruction inflicted on them through myriad ways by strapping on a suicide bomb. Unable to impose its will on countries it has invaded with conventional arms, the West's military leaders are now prepared to force compliance with the moral world's will by threatening to nuke those who resist. You see, since the West has the monopoly on morality, truth, and justice, those in the outside world are obviously evil, wicked and brutal." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘The West's Orwellian Monopoly on Morality’ http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12252 January 24, 2008).

Now Russia wants right to First Nuclear Strike to save Human Beings.
"Well, you have probably been wondering what prompted the Chief of the Armed Forces General Staff, General Yury Baluevsky, to announce last week that Russia was re-thinking its national security policy and that although, "We have no plans to attack anyone. But we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military force will be used – preemptively – including the use of nuclear weapons." Perhaps it was the presentation just days before of a 150-page manifesto to the Pentagon in Washington and to NATO's Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, to be discussed at a NATO summit – to which Russia has "observer" status – in Bucharest in April. An important conclusion of the manifesto is reported to be "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the [NATO] quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."" (Gordon Prather ‘Unleash NATO’ http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12269 January 26, 2008).

121. Manoeuvres for the Third UN Sanctions against Iran.
Nicholas Burns says New Sanctions will be Punitive: January 24, 2008.
"U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said on Thursday a new draft resolution against Iran agreed by major powers over its nuclear work would be punitive, despite Russian remarks to the contrary. "This resolution will be punitive. I saw some comments from Moscow yesterday saying it will not be punitive. That's not correct. It's a punitive resolution," Burns told reporters during a visit to Israel. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Moscow on Wednesday the measures in the draft "do not have a tough sanctioning character"." (‘U.S. diplomat says Iran resolution "punitive"’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=17521 January 24, 2008).

Iran not interested in Further Talks with Bush regime: January 24, 2008.
The national intelligence estimate stated that iran did not have a nuclear weapons programme and yet the bush regime continued to demand further sanctions on iran for having the capability for creating such a programme in the future. It then wonders why iranians won’t talk to it. "Despite repeated offers from the United States, Iran has refused to set a new date for further talks between the two countries in Baghdad , U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday. The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors held three meetings last August in an effort to defuse tensions, but since then Iran has backed out of a follow-up session on three occasions, Iraqi officials said. These officials think the reason is a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate in November that reversed an earlier assessment and concluded that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. "The timing of the NIE report was a disaster," said an Iraqi official with knowledge of the meetings. "The message vindicated Iran's position .... The pressure and the threat of force were keeping them in check. Now that's gone." The official refused to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue. The Iraqi official worried that progress made in the earlier meetings may be lost if the talks stop, and Iran may reverse its support for a six-month cease-fire by the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al Sadr that's helped reduce the violence in Iraq . "We're set to go," U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told the Reuters news agency Thursday. "We have communicated that to the Iraqis, and the Iranians, for whatever reason, are holding back. We want to have these discussions, they have just suddenly gone quiet."" (Leila Fadel ‘Iran no longer wants to talk to U.S.’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080124/wl_mcclatchy/2826855 January 24, 2008).

Scott Ritter: Resolution enables America to label Iran as a Threat: January 25, 2008.
"Today, on the issue of Iran, the same "sanctions trap" (as that used against iraq) has been set. By continuing to label Iran's nuclear program as representing a threat to international peace and security worthy of Chapter VII attention, the Security Council helps sustain the fiction being promoted by the Bush administration of a dangerous nation which needs to be confronted at all costs." (Scott Ritter ‘The Sanctions Trap’ http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ritter.php?articleid=12257).

Sanctions are Proof that Iran is Guilty: January 28, 2008.
Western states, god bless their devious barbaric souls, are now arguing that iran’s refusal to abide by the un’s illegal sanctions, is proof that it is seeking nuclear weapons. And yet none of these zionist dominated states dares to mention the jews’ nuclear weapons in case their jewish lobbies decides to remove them from power. "Western countries say Iran's refusal to comply with U.N. Security Council demands that it stop enriching uranium supports their suspicion that Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons." (Louis Charbonneau ‘Iran sanctions vote at U.N. seen weeks away’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=23256 January 28, 2008). The west has also given no indication of the rewards that iran could receive if it suspended nuclear enrichment. If iran aceedes to the west’s demands it will only provoke the west into making further demands leading to the abolition of iran’s nuclear power industry.

The bush mafia’s proposition that iran must be seeking nuclear weapons because it refuses to abide by un sanctions has now been picked up by the zionist dominated american media. "Iran's refusal to suspend enrichment activities, in defiance of two sets of UN sanctions and the threat of a possible third, have fuelled western suspicions that Tehran is seeking to develop the atomic bomb." (‘Iran has capacity to produce nuclear arms: US intelligence’ http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080213/pl_afp/usirannuclearpolitics February 13, 2008).

Jews’ Allies trying to get Sanctions before the next IAEA report: January 31, 2008.
The likudnik dominated bush regime is demanding a new set of un sanctions prior to the publication of the iaea’s report on iran’s co-operation over its nuclear record. Clearly the likudniks are hoping that if they can do this they’ll then be able to get another set of sanctions soon after the report is published by hyping up any negative conclusions. "Between now and early March, that is, when the IAEA's governing board meets in Geneva to deliberate on ElBaradei's country report on Iran, we will likely witness a stiff struggle at the UN over the exact content, wording and timing of the third sanctions resolution. Thus, the US's extra effort now to preempt the IAEA report by getting the third UN resolution passed well ahead of the next IAEA meeting, perhaps betting on an instant Iranian backlash against the IAEA. But, in light of China's announcement that it will take "several weeks" for the new resolution to be adopted, the US may not get its wish." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Race for sanctions on Iran speeds up’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA31Ak02.html January 31, 2008).

Afrasiabi seemed to believe that this tactic might be feasible. "The next Iran report by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is due in early March, and even though Tehran has fully cooperated and there is no evidence of military diversion from its peaceful nuclear activities, the United Nations is about to impose severe new sanctions on Iran, deemed "punitive" by a US government spokesperson." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Race for sanctions on Iran speeds up’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA31Ak02.html January 31, 2008).

Russia’s sudden change of Tactics: It now wants a Third set of Sanctions Quickly.
The prospects for a third round of un sanctions against iran plummeted after the bush regime infuriated president putin by announcing it was going to place anti-ballistic missiles in eastern europe. The chinese were also incensed that the same system was going to be put into operation in asia. So both russia and china had geostrategic reasons for retaliating against the bush regime. The prospects of a third round of sanctions seemed to dwindle even further after the publication of the nie report late last year. If the bush mafia wanted sanctions against iran then it would either have to exert even more pressure over its increasingly antagonistic allies or bribe them to obtain their co-operation. Low and behold, here we are on the verge of new sanctions. It has already been noted that china has been brought around to accepting a third round of sanctions by changes in america’s attitude towards taiwan which was moving gradually towards a declaration of independence from china.

Now russia has suddenly changed its tune. "South Africa on Tuesday protested a "rush" by the five veto-wielding Security Council members to adopt new United Nations sanctions against Iran, saying it wants to wait for a report from the U.N. nuclear agency later this month. South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo told reporters the International Atomic Energy Agency will issue a new report on Iran's nuclear activities by Feb. 20th. "Why are we rushing? Can't we wait for it?" he asked. "We just want to be sure that the council has all the information that it requires before it acts, but the timing is very important." Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the foreign ministers of the five powers, along with Germany, which has been a key negotiator with Iran, want council action soon. Delaying a vote until after the atomic energy agency report "is not the kind of understanding they had among the six foreign ministers," he said." (Edith M. Lederer ‘S. Africa protests plan to sanction Iran’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=34508 February 05, 2008).

Bhadrakumar offers an explanation. "There was a time when Iran might have believed that a multipolar world order would be just and fair from the point of view of the "suppressed nations". If that notion wasn't shattered long ago, it was surely was last Friday when the director of Rosatom, Russia's federal agency for nuclear power, Sergei Kiriyenko, urgently flew to Washington on a one-day "working visit". Russia's nuclear czar was rushing to formalize a deal between Russia and the United States that Moscow has been keenly seeking for the past several years. From Washington's point of view, the timing couldn't have been better. Just as it seemed a biting UN Security Council sanctions regime against Iran was impossible to achieve, prospects are brightening. In Washington, Kiriyenko and US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez signed a trade agreement allowing Russia to incrementally boost enriched uranium exports to the US. The deal allows the sale of Russian enriched uranium directly to US utilities." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html February 9, 2008).

Russia is a fossil fuel superpower but it is also a nuclear energy superpower. Firstly, in the sense that it has significant uranium resources. "According to Rosatom, Russia has 870,000 tonnes of natural uranium, the world's largest reserves after Australia and Kazakhstan." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html February 9, 2008). Secondly, because it has huge amounts of uranium resources tied up in nuclear weapons it no longer needs. Thirdly, russia is constructing a nuclear enrichment facility to provide safe nuclear energy to countries developing a nuclear power industry. "Russia is planning an international uranium enrichment center in Angarsk, eastern Siberia, which will supply enriched uranium to third countries planning to develop global nuclear energy." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html February 9, 2008). Fourthly, the more the world relies on nuclear energy, the greater the demand there will be for russia’s nuclear energy supplies – including those european countries who are switching to nuclear energy in order to avoid dependence on russia’s fossil fuels! And finally, russia and america have decided that in the interests of non-proliferation, they should establish a cartel in the provision of nuclear fuel to reduce the risks of nuclear proliferation. This will not only help to safeguard the world but will be hugely profitable for russia. "Last Friday's deal underscores US support of the Russian move to create an international cartel for nuclear fuel that strengthens the non-proliferation regime. But the idea of international centers is not as democratic as it sounds." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html February 9, 2008). The arab world will not be allowed to acquire nuclear enrichment facilities. Such a nuclear energy cartel will give russia and america a huge degree of political power since they could deny a country’s request for nuclear fuel.

Bhadrakumar argues, "Russian nuclear experts have acknowledged that the US implicitly associated last Friday's deal in Washington with Russia ceasing nuclear operations in Iran, where it is engaged in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Bushehr. In retrospect, the manifest haste with which Russia fulfilled, in eight installments during the six-week period since December 16, its obligations for supplying low-enriched nuclear fuel totaling 82 tonnes for the Bushehr plant falls into perspective. Russia completed on January 28, barely four days ahead of last Friday's deal in Washington, its eighth and final delivery of fuel for Bushehr." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html February 9, 2008). The bush regime wanted a quick nuclear agreement with russia to stop it from delivering fuel to iran but putin outwitted america and was able to deliver the fuel to iran before the deadline. So russia did not abandon iran at the very last minute as the bush mafia was hoping it would.

The bush regime has thus made huge sacrifices to russia in order to secure this deal for sanctions against iran. "By 2014, one in five American nuclear plants will be running on Russian uranium. The access to the US market enables Russia to fully utilize its uranium enrichment capacity, which stands at 40% of the world total." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html February 9, 2008). The bush regime has given putin considerable control over the provision of nuclear fuels which gives russia considerable political leverage over many countries, including america! It is truly amazing how much the likudnik dominated americans will sacrifice their own country in order to help the jews to enforce sanctions on iran.

Bhadrakumar believes it was this agreement between bush and putin which explains why bush did not protest about russia’s hasty delivery of fuel to iran. "Equally, US President George W Bush took a surprisingly tolerant attitude toward Russian fuel supplies for Bushehr, although Israel and several European capitals took serious exception to Moscow's move as being a direct threat to regional security. To quote a Russian commentator, "Bush all but repeated Vladimir Putin's words to the effect that now that Russia is supplying Iran with nuclear fuel, it will not have to deal with nuclear enrichment itself."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US-Russia nuclear deal upstages Iran’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak03.html February 9, 2008).

Afrasiabi’s Analysis.
Afrasiabi argues, "The united nations security council is illegally imposing sanctions on iran. "For one thing, the UN Security Council's attempt to deprive Iran of the capability to produce nuclear fuel has no legal precedent. Bottom line, this is an anti-NPT initiative that will only lead to an anarchy in rules and the collapse of norms that other nuclear proliferators can take advantage of." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Iran shakes pillars of nuclear accord’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak01.html February 09, 2008). Iran has treaty rights under the npt and if the unsc takes away these rights then global acceptance of international law will be severely undermined.

At present there are two nuclear non-proliferation systems: the un’s npt and america’s new non proliferation regime which it is hoping will eventually replace the npt. This regime is based on the following elements:
Firstly, the privileged position of the jews-only state’s nuclear weapons outside of international law will continue.
Secondly, india’s nuclear power industry will be accepted as legitimate but pakistan’s will not. India will become a permanent member of the un security council.
Thirdly, all non-nuclear powers will be prevented from enriching nuclear fuel. In other words, all third world countries will be forced to buy their nuclear fuel from a new nuclear cartel run by russia in collaboration with america.

America’s non-proliferation regime will protect the interests of america and the jews-only state in palestine and will be used to punish those countries which limited american and jewish interests. Iran remains a major obstacle to the success of america’s new nuclear geostrategy. "With the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) solidly behind Iran's nuclear rights, the coming ElBaradei report on Iran will likely sharpen the tensions at the UN between the US-led coalition aiming to penalize Iran for defying the UN's demands and the bulk of the UN's member states defending Iran's rights." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Iran shakes pillars of nuclear accord’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JB09Ak01.html February 09, 2008).

No chance for Sanctions prior to the IAEA’s Report.
"The permanent members met with the 10 elected members to discuss the resolution. After the meeting, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, was asked when a vote on the resolution could be expected. "I don't think this resolution's going to be adopted before the IAEA report comes out," Sawers told reporters. The IAEA report is expected to be released around Feb. 20-22. Washington had hoped that the vote could come before the IAEA report, which diplomats say will announce that the agency has resolved most outstanding questions about Iran's past nuclear activity. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed more modest expectations Wednesday. "I would hope that within a few weeks, at least, we would be able to get a vote, an affirmative vote," Rice told the House Foreign Affairs Committee." (Louis Charbonneau ‘Iran sanctions draft to be revised, Britain’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=45125 February 13, 2008).

122. McCain wants more Wars - January 28, 2008.
More Wars for the Jews on the Way.
"Presidential candidate John McCain shocked observers on Sunday when he told a crowd of supporters, "There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars." MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asked old-line conservative Pat Buchanan about McCain's remarks, saying, "He talked about promising that more wars were coming. ... Is he so desperate to get off the economic issue?" Pat Buchanan replied that McCain never used the word "promise" but simply said there would be more wars, and that from McCain's point of view, "that is straight talk. ... You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran. That's one of the things that makes me very nervous about him," Buchanan went on. "There's no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. ... His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he's threatening the Iranians, we're going to be in Iraq a hundred years."" (Buchanan: McCain win would mean war with Iran’ http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Buchanan_McCain_win_means_war_with_0128.html January 28, 2008).

Rabbi comes out in support of McCain.
"Lieberman's native ingenuity is legion. Recently, the conservative Democratic Connecticut senator explained to the Jerusalem Post newspaper his unorthodox decision to endorse the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. By using a very orthodox metaphor, the one-time Democratic vice presidential nominee apparently explained: "The rabbis say in the Talmud that a lot of rabbinic law is to put a fence around the Torah so you don't get near to violating it."" (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US plays matchmaker to Pakistan, Israel’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA31Df03.html January 31, 2008).

McCain leader of the Brownshirt Party.
"The Brownshirt Party has chosen John "hundred year war" McCain as its presidential candidate. Except for Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and Billy Kristol, McCain is America's greatest warmonger. In a McCain Regime, Cheney will be back in office with another stint as Secretary of War. Norman "Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" Podhoretz will be Undersecretary for Nuclear War with General John "Nuke them" Shalikashvili as his deputy. Rudy Giuliani will be the Minister of Interior in charge of Halliburton's detention centers into which will be herded all critics of war and the police state. Billy kristol will be chief White House spokesliar. The whole gang will be back, Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmster, Feith, Libby, Bolton. America will have a second chance to bomb the world into submission." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Does the Republican Party Have Aces Up Its Sleeves? http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02082008.html February 8/10, 2008).

McCain threatens to bomb Iran in order to win over Christian Zionists.
"Asked about his chances of winning the Republican nomination despite his poor relations with evangelical Christians, he noted that an influential segment of this community is very committed to Israel, and "obviously I have been a very strong proponent to the State of Israel." McCain's speech Thursday, at the Conservative Political Action Conference here in Washington, was designed to hammer this point home in an even more forceful way: "Those [Democratic] senators won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally Israel in the region", McCain said. Meaning: If you conservatives really care about Israel as you often say you do - I'm you're man. Here’s some more: "I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions"." (Shmuel Rosner ‘McCain found a tool with which to woo conservative Republicans: Israel’ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/952529.html February 10, 2008).

123. Bush’s State of the Union Address i.e. State of American Servility to Jewish Interests - January 28, 2008.
Bush is the Jews’ Greatest Quisling.
Bush is certainly the jews’ greatest quisling in america. He’s almost certainly the american president whose done more for the jews-only state in palestine than any other president in american history. He’s done more to trash his own country, and its national interests, for the sake of the jews-only state than any other president. Americans will suffer for generations to come because of the wreckage bush has inflicted on the american economy for the sake of his jewish masters. On monday he delivered his final state of the union address, in reality the state of america’s gross servility to the jews-only state. It would be interesting to find out how much of it had been written by aipac. He’s also in the running as the jews’ greatest ever quisling.

The Views of Matthew Rothschild: Bush still going for War.
"The only noteworthy thing about Bush’s State of the Union address was his unmistakable belligerence toward Iran. He mentioned that nation first in the context of why the United States must stay in Iraq: otherwise, we would "strengthen Iran," Bush said. He could have thought about that before invading Iraq, but he didn’t. And now he’s back in a bombing mood. Never mind that that the National Intelligence Estimate said Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons and didn’t have an active nuclear weapons program. Bush still raised the specter of Iran with a nuclear weapon. He castigated the Iranian government for opposing freedom wherever it "advances in the Middle East." And he said Iran was aiding terrorists or militia groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and in Iraq. It’s the latter excuse that he’s going to hang his helmet on. I’m betting that Bush will try to come to the American people once more before his term is up and declare that forces trained by Iran have attacked our troops in Iraq, and that he therefore is going after them. Listen to his words: "Above all, know this," Bush warned. "America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf." Even more ominous was Bush’s line, "Our message to the people of Iran is clear: We have no quarrel with you." As Robert Fisk has pointed out, this is the mantra that Presidents use whenever they are about to attack another country. It is an imperial tic, a ritual throat-clearing before the war-making, the rattle of the snake before the lashing bite." (Matthew Rothschild ‘Bush Betrays Belligerent Intentions Toward Iran in State of Union’ http://progressive.org/mag_wx012908 January 29, 2008).

The Views of Scott Ritter.
"In a State of the Union address which had everything except a "Mission Accomplished" banner flying in the background, President Bush all but declared victory over the insurgency in Iraq. His recertification of the success of the so-called surge has prompted the Republican candidates to assume a cocky swagger when discussing Iraq. They embrace the occupation and speak, without shame or apparent fear of retribution, of an ongoing presence in that war-torn nation. It also ensures that the debacle that is the Bush administration’s overarching Middle East policy of regional transformation and regime change in not only Iraq but Iran and Syria will continue to go unchallenged. If the president is free to pursue his policies, it could lead to direct military intervention in Iran by the United States prior to President Bush’s departure from office or, failing that, place his successor on the path toward military confrontation." (Scott Ritter ‘Iraq’s Tragic Future’ http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080205_iraqs_tragic_future/ February 05, 2008).

124. Jews inciting West to attack Iran - January 28, 2008.
The jews want western states to give up their national interests in order to fight for jewish supremacism in the middle east. "While Israel was capable of defending itself, the international community could not stand by and allow atrocities to happen as it did during the Holocaust, Olmert said. "We call on others whose position is influenced by calculations of self-interest to abandon any foreign considerations and present one determined front in order to remove the shadow threatening regional peace and world peace," the prime minister continued." (Sheera Claire Frenkel ‘PM: Jews will never again be powerless’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523778011&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull January 29, 2008).

Netanyahu tried to provoke the west into feeling guilty for what happened during the second world war but all he did was reveal just how much he hates the west. "Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu also addressed the international community's obligation to fulfill its promise of "never again." "The allies knew everything, but did not dispatch even one pilot. They had intelligence in real time and some of the most enlightened leaders of the 20th century. But they were apathetic to the fate of the Jewish people," said Netanyahu. "Today, anti-Semitism is back in full force... There are frequent calls for Israel's extermination, yet the world remains silent or says very little." (Sheera Claire Frenkel ‘PM: Jews will never again be powerless’ http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201523778011&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull January 29, 2008). Never again: no more war for the jews.

125. Khalilzad causes scandal by sitting next to an Iranian - January 30, 2008.
The jewish islamophobic fundamentalists in the bush regime go mad even if someone sits next to an iranian. "White House officials expressed anger on Tuesday about an appearance in which the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat beside the Iranian foreign minister at a panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Saturday. The in-fighting reflects continuing disagreements within the Bush administration about how to deal with Iran, and just where to draw the line on engaging its nemesis, particularly when the administration’s Iran policy appears to be in disarray. Many State Department officials say privately that they think the administration should directly engage Iran, and without preconditions, a view that is not shared by the White House." (Helene Cooper ‘White House Criticizes Envoy Over Iran’ http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/washington/30diplo.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=018d7b5c3d9be1dc&ex=1359349200&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1201687994-7Q5qCoaP7HeJBXqW7EXhaw January 30, 2008); "As Khalilzad is the only member of the entire Bush/Cheney foreign policy and security team who still has a chance of escaping the sinking ship with his reputation afloat, some nuts in the White House are now attacking him for sitting next to the Foreign Minister of Iran on a panel at Davos, where Khalilzad faithfully reiterated the administration's position and never spoke to or greeted Minister Manouchehr Motakki.)" (Barnett R. Rubin ‘Saving Afghanista: Three Reports Calling for Rethinking Strategy’ http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/01/rubin-saving-afghanistan-three-reports_5921.html January 31, 2008); "After speaking to the students, Khalilzad also defended himself against criticism that he had violated Bush administration rules by participating in talks with Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. They appeared onstage together on Jan. 26, and the U.S. State Department later said Khalilzad did not seek permission to participate. "I think there was a misunderstanding, because some people thought that we had discussions or negotiations with them. There wasn't anything like that," he told The Associated Press. "There was no discussion, no negotiation, no greeting of them. Just answering questions."" (John Heilprin ‘US envoy: Iran gained from US invasions’ http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=29894 February 01, 2008).

126. Rice confesses what she’s really, really after - January 30, 2008.
As if intent on obviating any signs of compromise on Iran's part, the US has escalated its demands, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice going on record about the need for Iran "to give up its nuclear fuel program". This surpasses the UN's demands, which go as far as requesting a mere "suspension" as a confidence-building measure, ie, inherently as a time-specific, temporary step." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘Race for sanctions on Iran speeds up’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA31Ak02.html January 31, 2008).

127. Iran has the right Analysis as to what America is up to in Pakistan - January 29, 2008.
Iran seems much better at analyzing the likudnik dominated bush regime’s military strategy than western commentators. "The Iranian thinking is that there is a concerted US-Israeli plot to destabilize Musharraf's regime with the twin objective of the US establishing a base in Pakistan for its military intelligence operations directed against Russia and China and at the same time for neutralizing Pakistan's nuclear capability." (M K Bhadrakumar ‘US, Britain stung by an Afghan temper’ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA29Df02.html January 29, 2008).